Part 2
The application is so obvious, I fear to be tedious in drawing it out ever so briefly. But, for _Parliament_ read, _Church_; for _The Ten Hour Factory Bill_, read _The Formularies bearing upon Baptism_; for _Doubledealing and Cruelty_ read _False Doctrine and Heresy_: and if in both cases, there be an ambiguity, and yet we charge no such double-dealing or cruelty on the one, as believing no such animus existed, or need be suspected in the parties who framed the one document, may we not equally acquit of false doctrine or heresy those who drew up the others because, though these may perchance be latent in the wording of them, no such animus is shown, or need be suspected in their authors: _i.e._ the Church which has sanctioned and used them.
There is another point in this analogy which will carry us a step further, and in a most practical direction.
If the legislature now, knowing all these circumstances, and having the power to correct the error, if so it regard that to which the ambiguous or careless wording of the Act of Parliament has led, yet take no measure for correcting it, and for re-asserting the humane principle which we are told it was intended to embody, this conduct will surely commit parliament now to the adoption of the bill as last interpreted. It would be too much to say even so, that it would convict the framers of the measure some four or five years ago, or the then parliament of either fraud or cruelty: but it might well fasten those charges upon the present parliament if they believe the act was intended to work otherwise but will not restore it to its efficiency. And so now, in our parallel case. If the Church of this our day, knowing all the circumstances of such an interpretation as we have been supposing in the matter of baptismal regeneration, do not use the powers she may have to correct the ambiguity which permits heresy to be lodged within her, she will acquiesce in and adopt that heresy as her own. It would indeed here again be too much to say that such conduct now would prove there had been a double-mind; an intended ambiguity for an heretical purpose in those who drew up our formularies; for _they_ might still have no more intended heresy, than Lord Ashley and the late Mr. Fielden cruelty to the factory children. But this, however it might clear the respective characters of men of another day, would be nothing at all as to establishing a claim to soundness now, or preserving the Church of England as a living branch of the Church of Christ. If we now adopt the heretical interpretation: if we now knowingly and wilfully continue the ambiguity; if we do not strive to remove the blot on the face of the Spouse of Christ; we shall be answerable as a body for the heresy, and must take the consequences both here and hereafter.
What then is the practical thing to be done in this exigence, supposing the decision now about to be given to be one admitting heresy?
No doubt there is much difference between our case here, and that in the analogy we have been using. The State _can_, beyond all question, take up its doubtful matter, and re-word it, in another meaning, too plain to be denied. The Church (among us) alas! has no freedom of speech: no direct power of action; no immediate method by which to correct the ambiguity.
But nevertheless she must do all she can, according to the means she has, or she will not be clear in this matter; and the most evident of all the steps for her to take is at once, and in earnest, and with her whole heart, to petition the throne to be permitted to meet in convocation to take these points into practical consideration. If she do all she _can_, she will not be to be judged, that she can do no more; but at any rate, I think any one of us may, nay every one of us should, suspend our judgment as to her being committed to heresy until we see what it is she _will_ do.
Having gone thus far in considering our position and duties, I will venture a little further, (I trust without presumption offering it merely as a suggestion,) to state what appears to me, the first actual step to be taken.
Though as a Church we cannot meet in synod until called together by the Crown, yet as Englishmen, as mere subjects of the empire we may meet and petition the throne that convocation may be licensed to deliberate upon the momentous questions which now affect the Church. As soon then as conveniently may be after the decision of the Privy Council shall be given, (and I may as well say here, that it appears to me to make very little practical difference as to the necessity of such a step, whatever that decision may be:) as soon then as conveniently may be after, a meeting should be called in London of all persons clerical and lay alike, who desire to see a freer action of the Church, for this one specific purpose to address the throne praying her Majesty graciously to concede to the troubled hearts and perplexed consciences of so many of her subjects, that convocation may be summoned for dispatch of business. The day should be carefully chosen: that it be not too soon nor too late: not too soon for it to be thoroughly and widely known, and for all who may be anxious to be present to make their arrangements accordingly; not too late, so as to beget any suspicion of lukewarmness. The Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London, should unquestionably with all duty and reverence be asked to preside; and all our Right Reverend Fathers in God, be requested to give us their help and blessing in this endeavour. All Churchmen who feel in these dangerous days it would be a great comfort and advantage to hear the Church’s voice distinctly indicating the course to be pursued, within any reasonable reach of that gathering, ay, and beyond it, would, it is to be hoped, attend. No extraneous matter should be gone into, and if possible the speaking, (at least so it appears to me,) should be but brief, allowing, if it may be, several hours afterwards for the sole purpose of those actually present to sign the address before leaving the room. I cannot doubt myself that the largest room in London would be insufficient for the numbers who would make a point of coming, and each man as he went away might say, with a heart of thankfulness, “Liberavi animam meam,” and “God defend the Right.”
Do not think in saying these things I am vain enough to suppose this must needs be the best plan to follow. I do but mention my own thought as a suggestion for others to consider, and I speak in some detail, because at any rate, by this means a practical character is given to what I say. What is best will be determined by others much more competent to decide, and I shall I trust be found ready to follow, wherever the path of duty shall be found to lead.
He would be a bold man who should venture to say what the events of a few years, nay even of one, may bring: but I think those certainly are not mistaken who deem that we are in a great crisis of our Church’s lot, and that very much depends upon our faithfulness, our wisdom, and our courage now. I have therefore been anxious to lay before you and any others whose hearts are burdened with our present troubles some of the thoughts which have occurred to my mind. I have been more particularly anxious to ask whether I am wholly beside the mark of reason and sound sense, in thinking it possible to see a middle way “between accepting and acting upon the decision” of the Privy Council, “and repudiating it altogether as if it had never existed.” In a persuasion that such a middle course there is, I have endeavoured to show how far the Judicial Committee commits the Church of England by its decision, even allowing it to have jurisdiction in points of doctrine, and my conclusion has been that we may admit both the authority of the tribunal, and also the formal heresy involved in the judgment it may feel bound to deliver in its duty of interpretation, and yet allow no stigma of actual heresy to lie upon the Church, unless she acquiesce in, and adopt that judgment as her own: that is, no further stigma, no further evil than, (to use again your words) “in the one point comparatively unimportant and trivial of the institution of a certain person to a certain benefice.” I am glad to think I recognize in this sentence an admission, that if the Church can be freed from any further participation in the doctrine involved, and if she do her best to repudiate any implication with heresy which that judgment may seem to throw upon her, she may well wait the time (I do not say for ever, but at any rate for the present,) till she may be enabled to clear up all ambiguity by restoring the full catholic sense to her formularies, through the legitimate channel of her own assembly and convocation.
In conclusion, I will but express how much consolation it affords my mind to think that the “burden and heat” of this trial, fall upon one so eminently fitted, as I believe, to bear them. In spite of all the sorrow which one cannot but feel that at his time of life when there should be the rest and repose which in less trying times, and to less true soldiers “should accompany old age,” _he_ should be called upon still to stand in the battle’s front, and bear its fiercest shock; in spite I say of this sorrow, there yet comes over me a lightening of heart and soul when I think this trial has not fallen upon one less equal to the emergency; less clear-sighted to see the line of duty; less bold to do it. If the burden indeed be heavy to any one of us; Oh! how much more, to him! And yet it is not merely a pleasure and a comfort, but a source of the most heartfelt thankfulness that the present Bishop of Exeter _is_ what he _is_. If _we_ are in doubt, yet _he_ may have no cloud upon his mind. If _we_ almost fail and faint, yet _he_ is one to rally us. If _we_ know not how to take or interpret the signs of the times, and question what is the path of duty, yet is _he_ one most able to enlighten and to guide us: most fitted (_who_ in our time so much?) to “render a reason” for what he does, or advises should be done, and _so_ render it, as to attach the faithful; confirm the wavering; and confound the gainsayers. I could almost weep for grief to think of the harassings and care of heart which he must undergo all these days; but for joy also that I believe they fall in God’s providence, upon a prelate, than whom the English Church has had none, since Laud, of a greater heart, to do or suffer all that may be needful in her cause. Whilst then in these days of rebuke and blasphemy we pray for all, let it be doubly for him, that he may see his way clearly in order to guide us also; that a double portion of that great Archbishop’s Spirit may rest upon him, both for his own comfort, and the benefit of God’s people; and that even if his very mantle should descend upon him, (there are other martyrdoms than those of the scaffold or the stake;) _he_ may “be strengthened continually with might in the inner man,” and _we_ may have grace, to _endure_ to see him wear it.
Believe me, my dear Maskell, Always affectionately yours, MAYOW WYNELL MAYOW.
_Market Lavington_, _Wilts._ _March_ 5_th_, 1850.
* * * * *
* * * * *
C. WHITTINGHAM, CHISWICK.
FOOTNOTES.
{8} I say here and in the whole of this letter, “about to do;” and “expected Decision,” because even if the judgement be now given, at the Time I am writing, I have not seen it or heard what it is.